Study No. 1
The Civic Federation
Constitutional Convention Series
J
General Considerations
For the first time since 1868 Illinois has voted
to revise her State Constitution through a Conven-
tion elected for that purpose, and the adoption or
rejection of the Convention's work by the voters.
Sane progress, disastrous experiment, or utter
stagnation, may result. Betterments can result
only from a sound public opinion, based upon
accurate information and study. Responsibility
rests upon each citizen.
Written and Compiled by
DOUGLAS SUTHERLAND
THE CIVIC FEDER
lATIONbF G«VCAGg
DECEMBER, ^918
Study No. 1
The Civic Federation
Constitutional Convention Series
^
General Considerations
For the first time since 1868 Illinois has voted
to revise her State Constitution through a Conven-
tion elected for that purpose, and the adoption or
rejection of the Convention's work by the voters.
Sane progress, disastrous experiment, or utter
stagnation, may result. Betterments can result
only from a sound public opinion, based upon
accurate information and study. Responsibility
rests upon each citizen.
Written and Compiled by
DOUGLAS SUTHERLAND *
S«r»lar.v fi^ *
THE CIVIC FEDERATION 6f OHltAfiQ
DECEMBER, 1918
» • <
The Civic Federation Constitutional Convention Series
STUDY NO. I.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
This pamphlet is designed to be the first of a series of Consti-
tutional Convention Studies dealing with various problems of Con-
stitutional Revision applying specifically to the State Constitution of
Illinois — problems which ought to have the earnest attention of all
voters, and which will within a comparatively short time be ab-
sorbing the attention of representatives chosen to sit in the next
Illinois Constitutional Convention.
CONTENTS
Part I — Introductory Statement
PAGB
Illinois Faces a Ecal ProJ)leni .'.
Progress and Peril in the Balance 5
A Patriotic Eesponsibility 6
Merit Is the Only Eeal Standard 6
Subjects to Be Considered 7
Part II — General Considerations
What Is a State Constitution? 8
Character and Origin 8
Limits Powers Otherwise Supreme 9
Excessive Limitations 9
What Kind of a Constitution Is Needed? 10
Some Limitations Are Vital 10
How Revision by Convention Operates 11
Most Exacting Tasks to Come 12
Duties and Relations of Assembly to Convention 12
Convention Has Broad Powers 13
Method of Choosing Delegates 13
History Sheds a Ray of Light 14
Always a Chance for Independent Action 15
When Should Revisions Be Voted On? 16
Might Submit Constitution in December, ]9l!n 17
Compensation Previously Allowed Delegates 18
Qualifications of Delegates 19
The New Constitution — How Submitted 20
Experiences of Other States 21
The Illinois Plan Best 22
Cliaracter of the Delegates 23
Pledging of Delegates a Bad Policy 2 o
Published by
The Civic Federation of Chicago
The Temple, La Salle & Monroe Streets
Chicago, Illinois
PART I—INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
ILLINOIS FACES A BEAL PROBLEM
For the fourth time in our State's history of one hundred
years, the electors, on November 5, 1918, ratified the call for a
Convention "to revise, alter or amend the State Constitution of
Illinois." The action taken by the Fiftieth General Assembly
in 1917 in voting to submit this question for the approval or
rejection of the people, was more important and more broadly
significant than if it had voted merely to submit a single specific
amendment. An amendment would have proposed' a change in
only one phase of the fundamental law of our State. The voters
would have been casting their ballots for or against a definite
proposed change ; whereas, now they have voted to open the
whole Constitution to such changes or revisions as the Conven-
tion soon to be elected may choose to propose.
PROGRESS AND PERIL IN THE BALANCE
The general election of 1918, with the huge vote cast to open
this wide door for revision of our Constitution, therefore may
prove to be another mile-post in the political and economic his-
tory of Illinois ; and while we hope for great benefits to be gained
from the holding of this Convention, it also is possible that the
finger on this mile-post may point the way up some rough
by-path of doubtful and dangerous experiment, instead of along
the broad highway of true progress. Almost equally menacing
is the possibility that the Convention may not be able to agree
upon such a revision or such amendments as the people would
approve, and that, after years of eflfort, we shall have to continue
to break our way through the new country of future years with
the plow and scraper of 1870 instead of with modern road-making
machinery.
A PATRIOTIC BESPONSIBILITY
It is a part of the debt which we owe to our returning Illinois
soldiers to see that not only shall none of the freedom which
they have been fighting to safeguard and insure to others, be
lost to them through our misunderstanding of the basic prin-
ciples of permanent popular government, but rather that the
government which they left shall be made better.
A tremendous responsibility, therefore, rests upon each citizen
who on November 5 voted for the proposition to call this Consti-
tutional Convention. There is the utmost need that each should
give some individual attention and some individual thought to
the problems that are going to arise and demand solution. It is
no time for citizens to be led away by shibboleths or slogans or
popular leaders, or even to rest upon preconceived ideas. The
great need is for tolerance, for a seeking after the latest infor-
mation, for careful and intelligent study of such facts and argu-
ments on both sides as can be obtained.
MERIT IS THE ONLY TRUE STANDARD
It is an old and a "low-brow" political saying that one preju-
dice is worth a thousand arguments. Illinois citizens must
demonstrate once more that this sa3dng does not apply to them
if real advancement is now to be made. After all, the question
is, jiot who is for or who is against a pending proposition, but
what the proposition is and what its effect will be. That some
influential organization or some leader in public or civic life
endorses or condemns this or that proposal, should not in itself
be important. Of course, in so far as such endorsement or con-
demnations are supported by fact and logic, they will have weight.
Nevertheless, the important thing is that each individual citizen
should arrive at an opinion for himself, and then be ready, with
his voice and his ballot, to support that opinion. That will give
us real majority opinion, which long experience has proved almost
always to be sound, and with that opinion we can make progress
beneficial to all.
Sound opinion can be formed only upon a basis of accurate
information, and it is in the hope of supplying such information
as to the most important changes likely to be urged before the
approaching Convention, that the Civic Federation has directed
the publication of this series of Constitutional Convention studies.
The aim will be to supply the material in simple, direct language
and in such brief form as will be. convenient for the average
busy citizen who finds all too little time to give to problems of
government.
SUBJECTS TO BE CONSIDERED
Among the questions which will come before the Conven-
tion, and therefore which will come before the voters, either in
the campaign for the election of delegates or in the campaign
for adoption or rejection of the new Constitution or such amend-
ments to the present Constitution as the Convention may submit,
are the following, to which it is the present plan to give con-
sideration in pamphlets as indicated :
1. Taxation.
2. Representation in the General Assembly.
3. Local Governments — County and City; Home Rule.
4. Short Ballot.
5. Court Reorganization.
6. Direct Legislation.
7. Facilitation of the Impeachment Process; The Recall.
8. Suffrage.
9. Liberalization of the Amending Article.
10. Bill of Rights, Liquor Traffic, Excess Condemnation, etc.
If other questions of major importance arise, additional pam-
l^hlets may be published dealing with them. At present, however,
it would seem that the constitutional changes thus far discussed
fall naturally under one or another of the foregoing headings.
PART II— GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
WHAT IS A STATE CONSTITUTION?
In a modern democracy a Constitution is the framework of
government. It may be said to be the contract or agreement
which the people of a State or a Nation enter into, and by it fix
in general the rights, privileges, duties and obligations which
individuals may enjoy and perform without injustice or hurt to
anyone. As the people can govern themselves only by electing
officials to do the detailed work for them, it is necessary in the
Constitution or agreement to say in a general way what powers
the men who are to make and enforce the detailed laws shall
have- — what things they may not do at all, and what things they
may do if the people approve.
CHARACTER AJNTD ORIGIN
The Constitution of the United States differs from the Con-
stitutions of the several States chiefly in that the former is a
grant by the States to the Federal Government, and particularly
to the Congress, of definite powers broadly stated ; whereas, the
latter fix limitations upon the powers of the State govern-
ments — particularly, of course, upon the legislative bodies, which
otherwise theoretically are sovereign and supreme. Bryce ("The
American Commonwealth") points out that State Constitutions
are the continuations of the royal colonial charters, and their
origin goes even back to the charters of merchant guilds and
trading companies. These charters were, naturally, the broadest
possible grants of power, subject, however, to being ended or
changed at any time by the royal hand which granted them.
They amounted merely to the authority to govern in any way
not specifically forbidden by limitations. When the Colonies
threw off the royal yoke and became the States, the people took
the place of the crown as the grantors of authority and the fixers
of limitations upon their public servants.
LIMITS POWERS OTHERWISE SUPREME
The chief changes from the Colonial Charters to the State
Constitutions in the early days of the Republic were in the nature
of limiting the powers of the executive, because of their distrust
of kings, and later in the limitation of the powers of the State
legislative body, when abuses began to appear. In the theory
of State Constitutions, therefore, the Legislature is free to act
in any manner not prohibited. Some State Constitutions, espe-
cially those adopted since 1870, attempt to set forth in detail,
either throughout the Constitution or in some of its sections,
just what the legislative body may and shall do. In these cases
it is held that by implication the Legislature is prohibited from
taking any action not specifically allowed.
With reference to the broad powers of the Legislature and
the limitations of the Constitution in Illinois, the Illinois Supreme
Court (Twenty-tirst Illinois, page 513 — Firemen's Benevolent
Association vs. Lounsbury) has this to say:
"The general grant of legislative power found in the Consti-
tution confers upon the General Assembly all legislative power,
and authorizes the lawmakers to pass any laws and do any acts
which are embraced in the broad general word legislation as
known and dclined in the English language. It authorizes the
passage of any law which could be enacted in the most despotic
government. It even authorizes everything which the people
could enact in their primary capacity. Anything which they
would have a right to embody in the Constitution itself. After
this broad grant of legislative power, the Constitution in various
provisions proceeds to limit and restrain its exercise. So far as
was deemed necessary to prevent oppressive and unjust legisla-
tion and only to the extent of these limitations, has the legislative
power thus granted been circumscribed, and beyond these limi-
tations the power exists in its full vigor."
While this opinion was delivered in 1859, the situation has
not changed except that more limitations are contained in the
present Constitution of 1870 than were contained in the Consti-
tution of 1848.
EXCESSIVE LIMITATIONS
Most State Constitutions, during the latter half of the nine-
teenth century, to a greater or less extent departed from the
early ideal of wide authority and few limitations. This departure
has tended to a great rigidity in the organic laws of the States,
which has made it difficult for many of them to keep pace with
modern development, the Legislature being too restricted in
power to pass proper statutory laws. In this respect Illinois
is somewhat better ofif than a great many States. However,
there is undoubted need of changing or relaxing some of the
restrictions which no longer apply, and naturally enough the
idea of a broadly phrased and elastic Constitution is in much
favor. Times have changed, and limitations placed upon the
executive power when memories of autocracy were fresh, and
limitations placed upon legislative power as the result of some
sorry experiences, now appear irksome and unduly harsh. Most
of the limitations placed upon the legislative power in Illinois
in 1848 and 1870, however, followed abuses which are written
into the history of our State. To what extent can we modify
them without inviting old troubles to reappear? What will be
the boundary line of 1920 between too great rigidity and too
great elasticity in our Constitution?
WHAT KIND OF A CONSTITUTION IS NEEDED?
The campaign for the adoption of the Constitutional Con-
vention question was conducted by a broadly representative
committee drawn from political and economic groups of widely
divergent views. The members of this committee probably stood
for the best and most intelligent thought in each of these groups.
From the arguments for the Convention proposition which this
committee united in putting forth, it is evident that there is little
sentiment in favor of adding detailed restrictions upon the legis-
lative power to those already existing in the Constitution. Unless
there is a marked revulsion in popular sentiment between now
and the time for holding the Convention, the tendency will be
toward a relaxation of existing limitations and not at all toward
writing into the Constitution detailed provisions designed to
carry out various ideas and theories.
SOME LIMITATIONS ARE VITAL
Some limitations undoubtedly should be kept. Some perhaps
can be eliminated, others broadly changed. A detailed discussion
of these limitations and suggested changes will be attempted in
the later pamphlets of this series. In general, however, if wise
10
and broad-minded men are elected as Delegates, they probably
will realize that many of our constitutional provisions can safely
be liberalized, provided that the Convention adheres closely to the
sound and approved basis of representative government. At the
same time they will try to retain as much as possible of the present
Constitution, with a view to avoiding unnecessary readjustment
and confusion ; there will be a decided reluctance to disturb
a long line of Supreme Court decisions which actually protect the
public welfare. Histor}- of past Constitutional Conventions in
Illinois shows a tendency to change the existing uocumcnt only
where necessary to meet new conditions — and in each case to
provide for a little easier method of future amendment than
had been permitted before. Progress may still be achieved by
following this precedent.
HOW REVISION BY CONVENTION OPERATES
The method of revising the State Constitution through the
convention process in Illinois may be outlined as follows :
1. Submission to the male electors by a two-thirds vote of both
houses of the General Assembly of the proposition to call
a Convention "to revise, alter or amend the Constitution
of this State."
2. Ratification of this proposal by a majority of all the electors
(male) voting at the election.
3. Passage of an Act by the next General Assembly providing
for a "Convention to consist of double the number of mem-
bers of the Senate, the members to be elected (by male
voters) in the same manner, at the same places and in
the same districts as State Senators," and designating the
day, hour and place of meeting, and fixing and providing
for the pay of members and of^cers and other expenses of
the Convention.
4. The Convention shall meet within three months after the
election of members, whose qualifications must be the
same as those of members of the Senate. The Convention
shall prepare such revision, alteration or amendments as
may be deemed necessary.
5. Such revisions, alterations or amendments shall be submitted
to the male voters for ratification or rejection at an elec-
tion appointed for that purpose, not less than two, nor
11
more than six months, after the final adjournment of the
Convention.
6. If approved by a majority of the electors (male) voting at
such election, such revision, alterations or amendments
shall take effect and take the place of the old constitutional
provisions. Otherwise they shall have no efifect, and the
old Constitution will remain in full force.
MOST EXACTING TASKS TO COME
The first two steps — the two most difficult steps, the securing
of the two-thirds vote in the Legislature, and of the majority of
all votes cast at a general election — have been taken. The most
serious and constructive part of the job remains to be done.
The next General Assembly must pass a Bill providing for
the election of Delegates, and setting the time for the election
and for the holding of the Convention, in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution.
The number of Delegates is fixed by the Constitution at 102 —
two to be elected from each of the fifty-one Senatorial districts
of the State. The next Convention, therefore, will be just twice
the size of the Illinois State Senate and two-thirds the size of the
House of Representatives of our General Assembly, one State
Senator and three State Representatives being elected to the
General Assembly from each Senatorial district.
DUTIES AND RELATIONS OF ASSEMBLY TO CONVENTION
In the enactment which it must make during the session begin-
ning January 8, 1919, the General Assembly will have an abso-
lutely free hand in only a few particulars. It may fix the time
for the election of Delegates, but the Constitution stipulates
that they must be elected in the same manner, at the same places
and in the same districts as State Senators. The Assembly may
name the place of meeting, and also the time, provided that the
date set must be within three months after the date of electing
Delegates. It may fix the compensation of the members and
officers of the Convention, and provide for these and the other
necessary expenses of the gathering. In other respects, how-
ever, a Constitutional Convention appears to be free from legis-
lative limitation, and former enactments of this character have
shown a uniform tendency to concede to the Convention broad
12
powers as to its own organization, such as stating that the Con-
vention shall be the linal judge of the privileges and elections
of its members ; that the privileges of members should be the
same as those of members of the General Assembly, and author-
izing the members to elect one of their own number President,
and to select and fix the compensation of minor officers. The
Constitution itself requires Delegates to take an oath to "support
the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Illinois
and to faithfully discharge their duties as members of the Con-
vention" — which perhaps is well, since the Convention of 1870
consumed the best part of four days in agreeing upon a different
oath from that prescribed merely by the General Assembly.
It might save the next Convention some of the confusion
which attended the opening sessions of the jast one, if the next
legislative Act should include a simple rule for preliminary
organization. If this rule followed the procedure for opening
the first regular session of the Senate or the House of Repre-
sentatives it probably would conform to the underlying idea in
all Illinois Constitutions that the Constitutional Convention and
the General Assembly are closely (see page 17) related.
CONVENTION HAS BROAD POWERS
The Convention may fix the time for its own recesses and
final adjournment. It may determine the manner in which such
revisions, alterations or amendments as it may agree upon shall
be submitted to the electors. It must provide for such sub-
mission, and fix the time for the election "for that purpose"
which, however, the Constitution requires shall be called not
less than two, nor more than six, months after its final adjourn-
ment.
METHOD OF CHOOSING DELEGATES
A question now under debate, and which must be settled by
the next General Assembly, asks whether candidates for Dele-
gates must strive for party nominations in a costly direct pri-
mary, as candidates for State Senator and most other public
offices now have to do, or whether it is in the power of the
General Assembly to provide, if it thinks best, some simpler
method of selection, either through nomination by party con-
vention, or through nomination by petition and a non-partisan
election. Each plan has its friends, and many assert that either
would be more likely to encourage the better and therefore the
busier men of the State of all classes to become candidates for
this service than would the direct primary method. Many law-
yers, however, believe that the language of the Constitution will
require the use of the direct primary method of nomination
unless the present direct primary law is changed before the Act
calling the Convention goes into effect.
HISTORY SHEDS A RAY OF LIGHT
The history of the election of Delegates to the Convention
of 1870, as found in old newspaper files, indicates that while
nominations were made by political parties, in some instances
independent candidates were finally elected. While the Con-
vention was made up of forty-four Republicans and forty-one
Democrats, fifteen of the number appear to have been elected,
nominally at least, as Independents, and the whole record of that
Convention shows few, if any, important divisions along party
lines.
In Chicago and Cook County the offices to be filled at the
same time that the Delegates were to be elected were, Mayor,
Treasurer, Collector, Attorney, Clerk of Police Court, Judge and
Clerk of Superior Court, Judge and Clerk of County Court,
County Treasurer, School Commissioner, Surveyor, Police Com-
missioner, two Justices of the Peace, and Town Officers in South
Chicago, West Chicago and North Chicago. The Republican
party held its County Convention under chairmanship of Judge
L. B. Otis, and made nominations for the regular offices, and
then the Delegates from the three Assembly Districts to which
Cook County was then entitled (it now has nineteen such dis-
tricts and no reapportionment has been made since 1901) met
in district conventions and on Sept. 14, 1869, made nominations
as follows :
59th District— Joseph Medill, J. B. Bradwell and L. L. Bond.
60th Districts — J. Y. Scammon and J. K. Thompson,
61st District — S. H. McCrea and James L. Stark.
There appears to have been a large element who did not favor
the nominees of this Convention, and on Saturday, September 25,
a "Citizens' Ticket" was announced for all offices, including the
14
following nominees for members of the Constitutional Con-
vention :
59tli District — S. S. Hayes, Joseph Medill and John C. Haines.
60th District — Charles Hitchcock and W. F. Coolbaugh.
61st District — Elliott Anthony and Daniel Cameron.
The Democrats refrained from making nominations for this
election, but threw their support to this latter ticket, which
swept the county by ten thousand majority (a landslide in that
day) on November 2, 1869. The Convention candidates on the
"Citizens' Ticket" Avere among the leading men of the commu-
nity and took a leading part in framing the work of the Con-
vention.
ALWAYS A CHANCE FOR INDEPENDENT ACTION
The action taken in 1869 suggests that citizens still have an
opportunity to protest against weak or objectionable party nomi-
nees, however chosen, and that in any district where it seems
desirable petitions may be filed for independent candidates of
ability and good reputation. The Convention of 1870 was made
up of able men, for the most part chosen under partisan machin-
ery, however ; and it is not unreasonable to expect that the
responsible party leaders of today will do all in their power to
put forward men of the same high caliber. The great difficulty
of today lies in the danger of nominations by minorities and the
decentralization of responsibility under the present direct pri-
mary law.
DATE FOR ELECTION OF DELEGATES
On the cjuestion of the date to be fixed for the election of
members of the Constitutional Convention, the next General
Assembly is likely to receive a number of suggestions.
The eighty-five Delegates to the last Constitutional Conven-
tion were elected on the Tuesday after the first Monday in
November, 1869 (November 2). The Convention met on the
third Monday of December, 1869. In the preceding Constitu-
tional Convention (that of 1861-62, whose work was rejected at
the polls) the seventy-five Delegates were elected and convened
at the same seasons of the year 1861. The 162 Delegates chosen
to the Convention of 1847-48 were elected on the third Monday
15
in April, 1847, and convened on the first Monday of June next
following.
It has been suggested that the election of members for the
next Convention should be held in November, 1919, which would
enable the Convention to meet in December, 1919. There is no
general election day throughout the State next year, so that
there probably would have to be a special election, with possibly
a special primary election preceding it.
It is also suggested that if the Act providing for the Con-
vention could be passed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses
with an emergency clause, so that it would take effect imme-
diately (instead of on July 1, 1919 — the date when the ordinary
enactments of the next General Assembly would take effect)
the election of Delegates could be held earlier in the year, per-
mitting an earlier meeting of the Convention. In this event it
is suggested that if primary elections must be held to nominate,
thc}^ might be set, for the sake of saving expense, to coincide
either with the municipal elections held on the first Monday of
April or with those held on the third Monday in April, 1919.
Should any method be devised of holding only one election for
Delegates, it is contended that it might be possible to hold the
election on one or the other of these days. If, as appears likely,
however, a primary election, either of delegates to a nominating
convention, or directly for the nomination of members of the
Constitutional Convention, is found necessary, this latter sug-
gestion proposes that the election proper take place in June.
WHEN SHOULD REVISIONS BE VOTED ON?
The selection of a date for the election of members of the
Constitutional Convention involves consideration of the most
favorable time for the election at which the Convention will
submit its proposed changes in the Constitution to the electors
for approval or rejection. A problem will confront the General
Assembly and the Constitutional Convention in the present case
which did not appear in 1870. In 1870 there was no national
election and no election of important State officers, whereas
1920 will be the year of a Presidential election, and Illinois will
at the same time be voting for a United States Senator. Governor,
and most of her other important State of^cials.
Those who favor the selection of members of the Constitu-
16
tional Con\ention early in 1919, point out that this procedure
would enable the Convention to meet in July, 1919, organize,
perhaps appoint committees to be working on some of the more
difficult prolilems, and get down to business in September after
a recess for the hot months of July and August. This would
permit the submission of the Convention's proposals early in
1920, before the attention of the public would be distracted by
questions of partisan and personal politics. Those who favor
this plan also point out that while a special election is desirable
for such submission, the selection of a day which would coincide
with one or the other group of municipal elections in April might
be considered for the sake of saving expense. It is possible that
objection will be raised to this plan for fixing the dates of elec-
tion on the ground that the voters would not have enough time
to select the most desirable Delegates to the Convention.
MIGHT SUBMIT CONSTITUTION IN DECEMBER, 1920
Those who believe the Delegates ought not to be elected
until November, 1919, agree that 1920, with its State and National
campaigns in progress, would be a poor time to ask the voters
for close attention to such an important matter as revising their
State Constitution. They point out, however, that the Conven-
tion would be at liberty to continue its sessions and not submit
its work until after the smoke of partisan battles had cleared
away. In every instance it has been the custom of Illinois Con-
stitutional Conventions to submit their proposed revisions at a
special election at which no other matter and no candidacies
were to be decided. While this means the expense of an extra
election, which today in Illinois would be considerable, it has the
advantage of securing the undivided attention of the voters for
the subject in hand, and has proved in the past worth all that it
costs in the registering of a real public opinion. If the people
will really participate and not be remiss in their duties, a special
election held in late November or early December might be
worth while, and still would give opportunity for readjustment
in the next regular session of the General Assembly.
Constitutional Conventions always have been and are free to
fix the time for submitting proposed Constitutional changes, pro-
vided only that they must be submitted within not less than
two, nor more than six, months after the Convention has
adjourned.
17
In 1847 the legislative Act stipulated that the amendments,
revisions or alterations shall be submitted on the fourth Monday
of October, 1847, and that the vote on the proposals should be
canvassed by the next General Assembly, but added : "Pro-
vided that if the Convention shall fix any other time for holding
the election or the manner of canvassing the votes, then such
manner as is pointed out by the Convention shall be adopted."
The Constitutional revisions of 1847-48 were voted upon March
6, 1848; those of 1862 were voted upon June 17, 1862, and those
of 1870, July 2, 1870.
COMPENSATION PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED DELEGATES
In the Convention of 1870 "members of the Convention and
their secretaries and doorkeepers" were entitled to receive for
their compensation six dollars per day and the mileage then
allowed by law to members of the General Assembly. In the
Convention of 1861-62, Delegates, secretaries and doorkeepers
were allowed four dollars per day and the mileage allowed to
members of the General Assembly. In the Convention of 1847-48
the convening Act allowed for the same mileage and the same
per diem allowance (then three dollars) as that of the members
of the General Assembly.
The General Assembly always has required the Secretary of
State to supply the necessary stationery and supplies and docu-
ments and to do the necessary printing, except in 1847, when a
special printer was provided. All public officers have always
been required by the General Assembly to supply such infor-
mation as the Convention might demand.
On the question of compensation for Delegates, Professor
Walter Fairlie Dodd, Director of the Illinois State Legislative
Reference Bureau, makes some interesting suggestions in his
"Constitutional Conventions in Illinois" (pp. 58-59). Objec-
tions, he points out, may be raised to the payment of a straight
per diem as tending to prolong the sessions of the Convention
unduly; to the payment of a per diem for a limited period of
time, as tending to shorten the session to the time fixed for the
compensation, whether the work were finished, or the time ripe
for submission or not ; and to a lump sum for the entire service
rendered, on the ground that it might tend to adjournment before
the work were properly completed. The latter plan, however, he
deems the best suited of the three ; suggests $1,000 for each Dele-
18
gate as the proper compensation, with a part of the payment
held back until the close of the session. This is the amount pro-
vided in the Michigan State Constitution.
Logically, a lump sum compensation would be the "Illinois
plan" of the present day: it is the method now used in paying
members of the General Assembly, and constitutional revision
in Illinois always has been connected closely with the legislative
process.*
It may be pointed out that in the past our Constitutional
Conventions have been composed chiefly of really big men, and
there appears to be no indication that the question of the per
diem ever influenced the delegates. It is to be hoped that the
approaching Convention also will be made up of men who will
not be influenced by this question. The suggestion for a limited
per diem appears wholly unwise. An adequate compensation in
the interest of securing as delegates some really representative
men who otherwise could not afTord to serve, particularly if it
proves necessary for candidates to go through the expensive pri-
mary as well as the final election, undoubtedly is just.
QUALIFICATIONS OF DELEGATES
The Constitution provides that the Delegates shall have the
same qualifications as members of the Senate, and that vacancies
occurring in the Convention shall be filled in the same manner
as those occurring in the General Assembly. This is by special
election called by the Governor.
A Senator must be at least twenty-five years of age, a citizen
of the United States, a resident of the State for at least five years,
*Thi3 probably has been on the theory that in revising their State Consti-
tution the people were acting in their primary legislative capacity. Under the
two earlier Constitutions the vote to ratify the call for a Convention or (after
1848) to adopt a Constitutional Amendment was required to be a majority of
electors voting for members of the House of Ecprescnt-atives. The present
Constitution requires a proposal to issue State bflnds in excess of $250,000 to
be approved by a majority of the votes east for members of the General
Assembly. Qualifications of delegates have always been those of one or both
branches of the General Assembly, and the number of delegates has equaled
successively the number of members of the General Assembly, the number of
members of the House of Eepresentatives, and twice the number of State
Senators. The qualifications of voters at delegate elections have generally been
fixed by the General Assembly as the same as those qualified to vote for members
of the General Assembly.
19
and for at least two years next preceding his election a resident
of the territory forming the district from which he is elected.
No Judge or Clerk of any Court, Secretary of State, Attorney
General, State's Attorney, Recorder, Sheriff, or Collector of Pub-
lic Revenues, member of either House of Congress, or persons
holding any lucrative office under the United States or this State,
or any foreign government (offices in the militia, notaries public
and justices of the peace are excepted), is eligible to the Illinois
State Senate (Art. Ill, Sec. 3), and therefore is not eligible to
become a member of the Constitutional Convention. Professor
Dodd ("Constitutional Conventions in Illinois," p. 57) argues
that this does not preclude members of the General Assembly
from serving as delegates to the Convention.
As the Conventions of 1848, 1862 and 1870 have each included
among the members a few of the more prominent members of
the current General Assembly, this reasoning appears to have the
support of precedent.
THE NEW CONSTITUTION — HOW SUBMITTED
The first Illinois Constitution, that of 1818, became effective
without being submitted for ratification of the electors. Article
VII of that instrument failed to require future Constitutional
Conventions to submit their revisions for popular approval or
rejection. Nevertheless, the Convention of 1848 decided that it
was in duty bound to submit its work to the voters, although the
question of its final authority to revise the basic law was raised
at the time, and Article XI — Commons — Vv^as declared by the
Convention to be a part of the State Constitution without being
referred to the people. The Constitution of 1848 (Art. Ill, Sec. 1),
however, failed to include provision for final submission of future
revisions, and the question was raised in the Convention of 1862
and mentioned in the Convention of 1870, although both of these
Conventions submitted their work to the voters.
The present Constitution (1870) requires a submission of the
Convention's proposals within a given time after final adjourn-
ment at an election appointed for that purpose, and stipulates that
such proposals must receive a majority of the votes cast at such
election in order to be adopted.
The publication of the proposed revision or amendments
and the manner of submission is left wholly to the judgment of
the Convention, in Illinois as it is generally in other States.
20
Past legislative acts calling Illinois Conventions generally have
stated that: "The amendments shall be so prepared and distin-
guished by numbers or otherwise that they can be voted upon
separately, unless the convention shall be of opinion that it is
impracticable. In cither case the Convention shall prescribe tiie
form or manner of voting."
EXPERIENCES OF OTHER STATES
In New York State in 1916 the Convention submitted its
entire revision of the State Constitution (by the way, a rather
voluminous and detailed instrument) as a whole. The combined
opposition of all the groups who objected, each to some single
provision of the new Constitution, overwhelmingly defeated the
laborious efl'ort of many unusually able men, and prevented many
public improvements. Such a result in Illinois, after years of
efifort to secure much needed revisions along sane lines, would
be a discouraging misfortune. Even a worse experience, how-
ever, might occur. The New York Convention was trying to
escape the mistake which had been made by the Ohio Convention
of 1912. That Convention proceeded to revise and rewrite the
entire Constitution, involving the application of several ex-
treme and new ideas, and then submitted the revision in forty-
two separate proposals, article by article and section by section.
The vote was light at that special election, and comparatively
few of the voters attempted to pass judgment on all the pro-
posals. They voted on those in which they were especially inter-
ested, and let the rest go. Thus each interested group, many of
them actually by far in the minority, wrote its pet hobby into
the State's basic law. Few proposals failed. In some respects
the resulting Constitution is farther behind than its predecessor.
Some progress was made, but the general result is regarded by
many as extremely unsatisfactory. Lack of coherence is, of
course, an attendant danger of such a method of submission.
In Massachusetts a Constitutional Convention convened in
June, 1917; submitted three proposed amendments in Novem-
ber, 1917; took a recess of several months, and then submitted
separately nineteen additional amendments which were voted
upon in November, 1918. The latter number of submissions
would be a good deal of a burden to put upon the electorate, if
the changes proposed involved questions of vital importance to
the people.
21
The State of Louisiana held a Constitutional Convention in
1913 following a favorable vote of the people upon the question
of holding a Constitutional Convention. Delegates were elected
at the same time that the question was voted upon. The Con-
vention was in session only thirteen days and was made up en-
tirely of Democrats. The Constitution became effective without
being submitted to the voters on Nov. 23, 1913.
The legislature of the State of North Carolina passed an Act
in 1917 providing that the question of holding a convention
should be submitted to the voters at the general eleetion in 1918,
and that delegates to the convention should be elected at the
same time. A letter received from the Secretary of State under
date of Dec. 9, states : "Owing to existing conditions, it was
agreed by both political parties in the State that no delegates
be nominated."
THE ILLINOIS PLAN BEST
In each of its revisions by Convention thus far, Illinois has
followed a middle course, which appears sane, and certainly has
resulted in progress and much satisfaction. Few material changes
have actually been made in either the Convention of 1848 or the
Convention of 1870. So much of the existing Constitution as
has actually stood in no need of change has been left intact, and
such changes as involved no great amount of debate in the Con-
vention have been included with the unchanged part of the Consti-
tution and submitted as one document. Thus in each case a
complete and coherent Constitution was submitted as a whole
to the voters, so that if adopted it would take the place of the
existing instrument. Then the matters which had aroused con-
troversies in the Convention were submitted at the same time
with the main body of the Constitution, so that they could be
voted upon separately. The matters thus separately submitted
were, of course, only such as had behind them any apparent, real
demand and such as a majority of the delegates deemed important
enough for such separate submission. If such independent propo-
sals were adopted they became a part of the Constitution, taking the
place of any conflicting proposals which might have been included
in the main body of the revised Constitution as adopted. Thus a
voter could vote for the Constitution which he favored as a whole
and also could vote to substitute a special provision, separately
submitted, for the provisions contained in the main proposal.
He did not have to vote to defeat the whole document if he
wished to defeat the separate proposal. This has resulted in
progress in IlHnois in the past. The Conventions ha\ c submitted
only a few separate proposals — the really important ones. The
people have been able to act intelligently, and good has resulted.
The Convention of 1847-48 submitted a complete Constitution
following closely the Constitution of 1818, revised to meet cer-
tain generally recognized needs, and submitted separately an
article directing the enactment of laws to prohibit the immi-
gration of colored people, free or slave, into Illinois, and also
an article imposing a two-mill tax, the proceeds of which could
be applied to retiring the State's indebtedness other than that
incurred for schools and the canal. All three proposals were
adopted.
The Convention of 1861-62 submitted a general revision of
the Constitution of 1848 and five separate proposals — an article
in relation to banks and currency ; a reapportionment of Congres-
sional Districts, and the following proposals afl:'ecting Negroes,
namely : 1, that no Negro, or Mulatto should migrate to or settle
in this State ; 2, that no Negro or Mulatto should have the right
of suffrage or hold any office ; 3, that the General Assembly
should pass all laws necessary to carry these two proposals into
clTect. All of these proposals failed with the defeat of the pro-
posed Constitution by the electors, although the three proposals
relating to Negroes received majority votes.
The Convention of 1870 submitted, in addition to its general
revision of the Constitution, eight separate proposals, all of
which were adopted. They were : 1, the article entitled Counties ;
2, the article entitled Warehouses ; 3, the proposal to require a
three-fifths vote to remove county seats; 4, the section relating
to the Illinois Central Railroad ; 5, the section relating to rail-
roads in the article on Corporations ; 6, the section relating to
municipal subscriptions to railroad or private corporations ; 7,
the section relating to the Canal ; 8, the section relating to
Minority Representation.
CHARACTER OF THE DELEGATES
The hope is freely expressed among thoughtful citizens that
the voters will give the most careful attention to the selection
of Delegates to the next Constitutional Convention, whenever
and however that election may be held. It is assumed that men
23
of moral worth will be chosen, but, in addition, it is pointed out
that the Delegates elected should be men with a thorough under-
standing of the problems likely to arise, and whos^ good judg-
ment and sense of public responsibility may be relied upon. Such
men were in the majority in the Conventions of 1848 and 1870,
but not, apparently, in the Convention of 1862.* It was the early
injudicious actions of a majority in that Convention which led
the people to distrust its actions and later to reject its proposals.
Upon the kind of men that are elected to make up the Conven-
tion, it is suggested, therefore, may largely depend the results
and benefits to be derived.
It is generally agreed that partisan strife and personal political
ambition should play no part in this important gathering. It is
to be hoped that the most representative men will be elected by
the various districts throughout the State, so that no important
group will be without its spokesman in the Convention. Dele-
gates elected, however, will soon realize that they are chosen to
be something more than mere spokesmen for the group with which
they happen to be affiliated or most in sympathy. In so far as
they have knowledge of the needs, views and desires of a con-
siderable part of the people, they will be valuable to the Conven-
tion ; but their responsibility will not be for any single group, but
for the future and enduring welfare of the people of the whole
State of IlHnois.
PLEDGING OF DELEGATES A BAD POLICY
The Civic Federation, in common with many forward-looking
citizens, believes that no candidate for election as a delegate
should be asked or consent to sign a written pledge binding
himself to favor or oppose this or that particular change, or to
follow this of that course of action. A delegate should be free
to act in accordance with the best light he can get and to act for
all of the people.
*The Convention of 1862 numbered many able men, including ex-Gov-
ernor Augustus C. French, W. Selden Gale of Knox County, John Dement
of Lee, president pro tem of the Conventions of '62 and '70, and a member
of the Convention of '48; and Melville W. Fuller, afterward Chief Justice
of the United States Supreme Court; John Wentworth, and Elliott Anthony,
of Cook County, but their sane influence failed to dominate the early meet-
ings of that assemblage. Among the leading figures in the Convention of
1848 were Judge David Davis, and Thompson Campbell, who resigned as
Secretary of State to become a candidate for delegate to the convention.
This treedom of action will not interfere with a free expression
of opinion by prosj^eotive Delegates as to important matters at
issue.
The signing of secret private pledges all too often amounts to
accepting the bribe of organized support in return for a promise
to vote in the Convention. It is in spirit the violation of the oath
of ofifice which every member of the General Assembly is required
to take. It probabi}- would constitute the violation of an Act
placed on the statute books in 1917, forbidding such pledges on
the part of candidates for elective oitices. It is almost as bad as
electing a judge on a pledge to render a certain opinion. It is
un-American, and should be frowned upon by citizens and by
candidates.
2b
ILLINOIS VOTE TO CALL CONVENTION
NOV. 5, 1918
Total male vote 975,545
Votes for Convention 562,012
Majority for Convention 74,239
On the same day the state of Idaho voted upon a similar proposal,
but, according- to a letter from the Secretary of State, dated Dec. 10,
1918, rejected the proposal by a large majority.
ILLINOIS CONSTITUTIONS
(Supplement to Study No. 1
DO YOU WANT THIS SUPPLEMENT
As a supplement to this pamphlet there soon will be published,
"Illinois Constitutions" — an arrangement of the Constitution of
1870 with the corresponding provisions of the Constitutions of 1818
and 1848 in parallel columns.
Please send in your application if you wish to have this supple-
ment, as only a small edition will be printed, and there will be no
effort at general circulation.
26
INDEX
Amending Article, 7.
Anthony Elliott, 15.
Bill of Rights. 7.
Bradwell, J. B., 14.
Bond, L. L., 14.
Cameron, Daniel, 15.
Campbell, Thompson, 24.
Character of Delegates, 24, 25.
City and County Government, 7.
Compensation of Delegates, 18, 19.
Constitution Defined, 8; State, Author-
ity Granted by, 9; Development, 8,
10; Limitations, 9, 10, 11; Origin, 8;
What kind does Illinois want, 10; Re-
vision by Convention: In Illinois
now. 11, 12; In other States, 21, 22.
Conventions, nominating, 13, 14, 16.
Conventions, Constitutional, 1848, 15,
18, 19, 20; 1862. 15, 20; 1870, 15,16, 18,
20; Other States, 21, 22; How Called,
11; Outline of, 11, 12; Possibilities, 5,
6; Broad powers, 13; Employes, 18.
Coolbaugh, W. F., 15.
County and City Government, 7.
Courts, Reorganization of, 7.
Davis, David, 24.
Delegates — Method of election, 13-15;
Time of election, 15, 16; Time of
election in the past, 15; Compensa-
tion of, 18, 19; Oath taken by, 13 ;_
Qualifications, technical, 19, 20; Qual-
ifications, Character, 26; In past
Conventions, 15, 24; unpledged, 25.
Dement, John, 24.
Direct Legislation, 7. '
Dodd. W. F., 18, 20.
Elections for Delegates — Method, 13-
15; Time, 15, 16.
Excess Condemnation, 7.
French, Augusts C. (Gov.), 24.
Fuller, Melville W., 24.
Gale, W. Selden. 24.
General Assembly, powers in general,
9; In re Constitutional Conventions,
12, 13.
Haines, John C, 15.
Hayes, S. S., 15.
Hitchcock, Charles, 15.
Home Rule, 7.
Initiative and Referendum (Direct
Legislation), 7.
Impeachment — Recall, 7.
Limitations, 6-11; Desirable, 10, 11;
Excessive, 9, 10.
Liquor Traffic, 7.
McCrea, S. H., 14.
Medill. Joseph, 14. 15.
Oath for Delegates, 13.
Pledging of Delegates, 25.
Qualifications of Delegates, 19, 20, 25.
Recall and Impeachment, 7.
Representation in General Assembly,
7.
Scammon, J. Y., 14.
Short Ballot, 7.
Starke, James L., 14.
Subjects of Series, 7.
Submission of Proposals — Time. 16, 17;
Manner, 21-23.
Suffrage, 7.
Taxation, 7.
Thompson, J. K., 14.
Wentworth, John, 24.
27
Published by
The Civic Federation of Chicago
1009 The Temple
La Salle and Monroe Streets
JOSEPH E. OTIS, President
THOMAS E. DONNELLEY, Vice-President
EUFUS C. DAWES, Treasurer
DOUGLAS SUTHEELAND, Secretary
Executive Committee
The Officers ;iud
WILLIAM C. BOYDEN WILLIAM V. KELLEY
ALFEED COWLES CLAYTON MAEK
JOSEPH H. DEFEEES ADOLPH NATHAN
E. ALLEN FEOST BEENAED E. SUNNY
Advisory Board
W. T. ABBOTT PHILIP S. POST
GEOEGE WM. DIXON CHAELES D. EICHAEDS
SAMUEL FALLOWS JULIUS EOSENWALD
JOHN F. GILCHEIST WILLIAM L. EOSS
GEOEGE B. McKIBBIN FEANK L. SHEPAED
H. H. MEEEICK JOHN L. WHITMAN
JOSEPH E. NOEL CHAELES P. WHITNEY
JOHN J. O'BEIEN HENEY G. ZANDEE
Additional copies may be obtained on request
"A frequent recurrence to the fundamental prin-
ciples of civil government is absolutely necessary to
preserve the blessings of liberty." Illinois State
Constitution, Art. 11, Sec. 20.
12-17-120
TVNews
OpenLibrary